Conway v. U.S. Parole Commission ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT CONWAY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-1538 (EGS)
)
)
SIMON WAINWRIGHT, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a petitioner who is confined at the
District of Columbia Jail on a parole violator warrant issued by the United States Parole
Commission. See Pet. at 1. For the following reasons, the petition will be denied.
The extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus is available to District of Columbia prisoners
if the prisoner shows that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner challenges the local statute governing
supervised release, D.C. Code § 24-403.01, on the ground that its execution violates the
separation of powers doctrine. He seeks “recall[]” of the statute and his immediate release. Pet.
at 3.
As the paroling authority for District of Columbia prisoners, the U.S. Parole Commission
is authorized by § 24-403.01(6) to grant, deny, or revoke a District of Columbia offender's parole
supervision and to impose or modify his parole conditions. See § D.C. Code § 24-131(a);
Thompson v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections, 511 F. Supp.2d 111, 114 (D.D.C. 2007).
2
Because the foregoing statutes govern the execution of a judicially imposed sentence, “[t]he
Parole Commission does not exercise a judicial function and its decisions do not violate the
separation of powers.” Montgomery v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civ. Action No. 06-2133 (CKK),
2007 WL 1232190, *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2007) (citing cases); accord Leach v. U.S. Parole
Comm’n, 522 F. Supp.2d 250, 251 (D.D.C. 2007); Hammett v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, Civ. Action
No. 10-0442 (JDB), 2010 WL 1257669, *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2010) (Bates, J.) (observing that
“[t]his argument, and similar separation of powers arguments, have been raised often and
rejected each time.”). Cf. with Maddox v. Elzie, 238 F.3d 437, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining
that “Morrissey makes clear that parole revocation is not the continuation of a criminal trial but a
separate administrative proceeding at which the parolee does not possess the same rights as a
criminal defendant at trial.”) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972) (emphasis
added). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: October 19, 2010